Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

mknewman writes "Elon Musk intimated that more-powerful batteries could be on the way for the Model S. The most potent battery pack currently offered in the Model S holds 85 kWh of juice, or enough for 265 miles of driving. Musk wasn't terribly specific, however: 'There is the potential for bigger battery packs in the future, but it would probably be maybe next year or something like that. The main focus is . . . how do we reduce the cost per kWh of storage in the battery pack?' In other words, Musk seems less concerned with stronger battery packs than making cheaper battery packs for the upcoming mid-size sedan, which is expected to be unveiled at the 2015 Detroit auto show. 'Our goal is to drop the cost per kWh by 30 percent to 40 percent.'"

Don't most states grant access to the HOV lane for alternative fuel vehicles? I know mine does. I see at least a couple of Teslas and Leafs (Leaves?) with AFV plates pass me on my way to work every day.

Don't most states grant access to the HOV lane for alternative fuel vehicles?

Most do, but that access will be phased out as zero-emmission vehicles are more widely adopted. California is already phasing them out for hybrids, but not yet for full electrics like the Teslas. The mannequin-battery is a better long term solution.

We have reasonably priced mid range battery cars having a range of 50 miles (winter with full heat 70mph) to 100 miles (sprint/fall no a/c, no heat, daytime, 50mph). If we have good Towable Range Extenders, basically gensets on wheels, this would help us switch to electric cars. Already I see (Lotus?) making integrated engine+genset in the same block, designed for constant rpm electricity generation. Many enthusiasts are creating these thingamajiggers with balsa wood baling wire and duct tape. It is time for some standards body like SAE to define standard connectors, tow packages, and electronic communication protocols etc so that we could mix and match these range extenders. I see some people owning them and most people renting them when they need them. Ideally close to highway entrances you should see franchises renting out TREs, may even in highway service plazas.

The electric utility companies have so much excess capacity at night, mostly idling or off line. If they could come up with special meters and sell electricity cheaply overnight, the break-even point calculations vis-a-vis gas cars will shift dramatically. The utility companies will get a piece of the transportation energy market, currently shared only between oil companies. That is the motivation for the utilities. We need to set dog against dog, thief against thief and coal burning utilities against oil companies.

I wish someone with the charisma of Elon or pig headedness of Jobs would make the top honchos of these organizations and companies to pay attention.

Towable range extenders allow you to take advantage of the existing gasoline/diesel infrastructure immediately. We know how to measure gasoline. Battery charge measuring is not very reliable. The franchise owner has to charge a battery over several hours, before renting it out again. TREs can be turned around and rented to the next customer immediately. This allows for franchises with less capital investment.

There is no need for every one of us to haul an IC engine all the time. 90% of the trips of 90% o

Not all rentals are beat up. Recently I needed a loaner when my car went to the body shop. Got a brand new Dodge Charger with some insane 290 HP engine. From enterprise. If there is a demand for heavy duty truck rental, the free market will supply it. If there is significant difference in cost per mile between using heavy duty gas truck and using electric truck, the demand will be created. Not every body is insensitive to price, like you.

No, they aren't... In fact, some are quite nice... But they are missing features, they are not the same fully loaded versions as what is for sale. My Yukon XL Denali has two DVD screens, it has air conditioned seats, it has power folding mirrors and running boards, it has navigation, etc. The rental Suburban likely has none of that. If I am going to take an 1,800 mile road trip with my wife and three kids, I'm not going to do it in a base model rental Suburban. No one who can afford a Tesla is going t

If the savings is enough, you could rent a conversion van. Me and my brother for a week long trip through Canada and New York rented a conversion van. Had seven bucket seats, large (for those days) DVD, mini cooler/fridge, nice nooks and cubbies all over. Presently electrics do not break even with gas easily. But that is based on electricity priced the same day or night. I don't see how long they can continue to do that. Almost all the large customers are on peak demand pricing, utilities have idle capacity

You're right, that is an option. Of course, the cost to rent for a week is $1,200 and doesn't include all that many miles.

Then you have to consider that I need something big enough for my family all the time, so I already need a large vehicle. It sounds really nice on paper, less so when reality hits. If gas were $8 a gallon, the idea would have more merit, but at current prices, it makes little sense.

One thing to keep in mind is that you may be paying over $10,000 dollars extra for that capacity vs renting a really big long range truck the few times a year you need this ability.

If it turns out you don't need that extra range, then you paid a lot of extra money for nothing.

However, there seems to be a severe disconnect between extra range and price. It should be cheap and a simple matter to have a slightly larger gas tank but that's not the way things work out in practice.

However, there seems to be a severe disconnect between extra range and price. It should be cheap and a simple matter to have a slightly larger gas tank but that's not the way things work out in practice. I've seen some people just load 10 to 15 extra gallons of a gas on a tow mounted shelf behind the car but I guess those shelves cost a five hundred to a thousand bucks.

With an ICE? For most the people most the time the solution is just to bring a few jerry cans, why permanently waste so much space on a bigger gas tank. That's probably why the people with 10-15 gallons extra keep it outside the car too.

With an ICE? For most the people most the time the solution is just to bring a few jerry cans, why permanently waste so much space on a bigger gas tank. That's probably why the people with 10-15 gallons extra keep it outside the car too.

Yeah, people do crazy things. The control tower of the Kulalumpur airport caught fire, TWICE. Turns out petrol is more expensive at some places compared to other places in Malasia. One air traffic controller was commuting by motorcycle from slightly distant part. He was buying and storing extra petrol in simple jerry cans under his workstation in the bloody control tower! Yeah, I am not surprised people keep jerry cans of fuel inside the car.

I'd be happy if GM would sell the Tornado in the US, but that's not going to happen any time soon because of a relic of some 1960's trade war with Germany and France over chickens. If they included Volt tech at a decent price, even better.

Rental cars and Zip cars sound like a nice idea, right up until you hit reality. Yes, most people don't actually need long range except a few times a year, but those times are when they want their nice luxury car or truck, not some cheap, beat up rental.

I drive a GMC Yukon XL Denali, a few times a year I take the family on long road trips. There is nothing I can rent that is the equal of my truck, nor would it be in as nice a condition.

I like the idea of owning a smaller car and renting a bigger one for trips. The problem I have found in trying to do this is that most people want a big vehicle around the same time, in the summer, and prices spike. Perhaps towable range extenders would alleviate this a bit because overcapacity could be stored more efficiently (tilting them up on end) and they would have less routine maintenance.

I just looked up some prices... Renting a Tahoe or Expediton for a week from Enterprise is about $500, this week. More in the summer of course. You get 1,500 miles at that price, which might or might not be enough. Neither is as long as a Suburban, which is more useful for road trips with multiple kids and baggage, both will be base model trucks, which can be owned for $500 a month. Luxury versions of these trucks cannot be rented as far as I can tell.

I like the idea of towable range extenders, but if you're renting one, what are the advantages over automated battery swapping instead?

I can see a couple advantages to towable range extenders.

Probably the biggest one is that once you've rented it you can continue to extend the range indefinitely by utilizing existing widely deployed infrastructure (stopping at a gas station to top up the generator's tank). So you can use to for trips into areas where the charging or battery swap stations haven't reached ye

I'm not sure I like the idea of $random_driver towing anything. Your typical Freeway Fool is a danger to himself and others with just the vehicle. With a short coupled trailer - especially trying to park or backup - hilarity ensues.

Another advantage of having a towable generator is that it could be used to power a house in those places that don't have underground power lines.Storms (both winter and summer) are only going to get worse as the temperature of the ocean increases...

I feel that adopting a design in order to bypass a legitimate regulation is rather bad.

There's also a whole lot of inherent problems with towed generators: A car towing something is not maneuverable and unlikely to pass the elk test, there will be unnecessary drag and towed generator will be heavy, since it will need to have wheels and some sort of shell. Series hybrids are already a fairly established thing and I do not believe and are the reasonable solution. The BMW i3 already has an optional built in g

With broken sentence I wanted to express that I believe that 'series hybrids are an established thing that I believe they are the reasonable solution to range problems in electric cars', but as can be seen I failed at this.

The battery that is coming will not be SOLD with the cars. They make ZERO sense for regular car driving. 40, 60, and 85 kwh is perfect (though 40 was killed) for running around town. What the coming 120 AND 160 KWH battery will be used for is long distance trips. You will simply to to the local service center, and swap your battery out with one of the LD ones. Then do your trip. If you are going to spend time at a remote location that has a service center, you will be able to swap back to a lower KWH batter

As the other responder said, the danger of fires with batteries is far less than that with fossil fuels, but even more - there is tech a few years off that will make them even safer. Just the other day someone developed a form of lithium ion battery that is significantly less prone to fire, which is amazing given how much energy is stored in those things. It's nearly impossible to design something that holds such an enormous amount of energy without it being dangerous if damaged and accidentally discharged.

Well - they seems to tell us about new fantastic improved super batteries.

Eh, that's what you get from reading press releases.:)

New chemistries frequently have some particular thing they do really well, and a set of drawbacks. The problem you get is when you read the articles about "new battery has X% more energy density", or "new battery has X% higher charge/discharge rate", and expect to get both of those things in the same battery (much less a battery that isn't making tradeoffs unamenable to consumer u

I find the perception that battery tech is not improving rather bizarre. You realise we have laptops that last 12-24 hours today, when only a decade ago the very best laptops lasted only 4 hours, right?

Mostly due to batteries. If you compare the power usage of laptops then, and now, you'll find that older laptops tended to use in the 10-20W range for their motherboard and CPU. Modern ultra books use a similar power level, while modern laptops use around 30-50W, and still get longer battery life.

You're also very wrong about laptop battery life. The increase in laptop battery life is almost entirely due to the huge advancements made in frequency scaling, advanced idle states, and fine grained power management (ie shutting down individual cores when not in use).

Every source I've been able to find estimates a 2-3x increase in Lion capacity in the last 25 years.

Oddly, 12 hours is about 3 times longer than 4 hours;)

You'll find that new laptops (and cell phones) will still run their batteries down very fast when actually under load, but when doing normal desktop tasks all of the advanced power saving features on the silicon are vastly cutting down laptop power consumption. Lion capacity has very little to do with it.

Nope, my laptop lasts about 6 hours even under very heavy load, I would have been lucky to get 1 hour, let alone 2 hours out of a laptop a decade ago.

Every source I've been able to find estimates a 2-3x increase in Lion capacity in the last 25 years.

Oddly, 12 hours is about 3 times longer than 4 hours;)

You'll find that new laptops (and cell phones) will still run their batteries down very fast when actually under load, but when doing normal desktop tasks all of the advanced power saving features on the silicon are vastly cutting down laptop power consumption. Lion capacity has very little to do with it.

Nope, my laptop lasts about 6 hours even under very heavy load, I would have been lucky to get 1 hour, let alone 2 hours out of a laptop a decade ago.

You may think you are proving a point, but the previous poster is correct. Li+ battery technology peaked in the 1990s. It is limited by the actual physcis involved. Most likely, what you are seeing is improvements in CPUs such as scalable frequencies, more efficient HDs or even SSDs, and changes to screen technology. Of course, it's also possible that with the shrinking of electronics and the increased size of laptops (17" screens), there is simply more room inside the case for larger battery packs.

FWIW it seems you need to increase the surface area of electrodes to increase battery capacity and this can be done with nanotechnology. The issue so far is reproducing some of these in mass production.

Mostly due to batteries. If you compare the power usage of laptops then, and now, you'll find that older laptops tended to use in the 10-20W range for their motherboard and CPU. Modern ultra books use a similar power level, while modern laptops use around 30-50W, and still get longer battery life.

No, mostly due to higher IPC, agressive power gating and deeper sleep stages. Here's the extended battery pack [toshiba.eu] from my 2002 UltraPortable, 3600 mAh in 330 grams. In 2014 the extended battery [amazon.com] for the Sony Vaio Pro 11 is 4690 mAh in 290 grams, that's about a 75% increase in power/gram in 12 years. There have not been any major revolutions in battery technology, it's still the same lithium-ion technology just a little more refined.

Mostly due to batteries. If you compare the power usage of laptops then, and now, you'll find that older laptops tended to use in the 10-20W range for their motherboard and CPU. Modern ultra books use a similar power level, while modern laptops use around 30-50W, and still get longer battery life.

No, mostly due to higher IPC, agressive power gating and deeper sleep stages. Here's the extended battery pack [toshiba.eu] from my 2002 UltraPortable, 3600 mAh in 330 grams. In 2014 the extended battery [amazon.com] for the Sony Vaio Pro 11 is 4690 mAh in 290 grams, that's about a 75% increase in power/gram in 12 years. There have not been any major revolutions in battery technology, it's still the same lithium-ion technology just a little more refined.

You're not comparing just the weight of the energy storage element, but also the weight of the casing. And that has changed a lot in the last 10 years.

Just like the singularity it seems that improved battery tech is always about 5-10 years down the road.

Pretty much true.

I've had laptops that ran on Lead Acid batteries, followed by ones that run on NiCad, and Lithium, then Li-Poly.Seems like they were all about 5 to 10 years apart.Seems like each time, we knew the new tech would arrive about 5 years in the future.

We are doomed to always be in this cycle, of using the best tech we have while waiting for rumored better tech form the future.

We even develop government programs [computerworld.com] to ensure that this perpetual waiting game remains perpetual.

"Why do people insist that batteries have to be at least 2-3 times as good as hydrocarbons before they can be useful?"..you might have noticed he used "kilometers"because in europe, cars that go 1000 km on a tank aren't really that uncommon(and current world record for production car being somewhere around 2000(!) km though that takes some preeetty careful driving)...

but let's say 6 liters per 100km. 60 liters tank. what do you get? 1000km.

This is easily achievable with battery swap stations at a much lower density than current petrol / diesel pumps. Or build cars so a variety of range extenders can be added when needed. The one demo'ed by Phinergy gives 1600km range and weighs 25kg. Or a fuel cell or small ICE unit, preferably one that's better than the REx in the BMW i3.

The battery swap idea is a dead end... I am not going to swap out my nice new $30k battery for some random unknown age battery from a stranger. Just not going to happen. The towable range extender is also stupid and not going to happen, the average driver sucks at driving without a trailer, with one, look out...

It would probably be a service you subscribe to, not a barter economy. Who cares about owning a "nice new battery"? It's a consumable anyway. A guaranteed minimum quality of service is all that i would require, and this is easily enforced.

You make a good point, and that works if I lease the truck. Since I don't lease, I buy, it doesn't appeal to me, but I see how a battery service as part of a car or truck lease would appeal to millions of customers, fair enough on that point.

I prefer to keep my trucks for 6-9 years, I buy them new and keep them in great condition, it is a pride of ownership thing.

Once electric cars become popular the government rebates aren't needed anymore. From the government's POV because they've already done their job of kickstarting the technology, and from the buyers POV because the manufacturers price has fallen though scale and improved technology such that it's a good buy even without the rebate.

I don't foresee them sticking to that policy when there are hundreds of thousands or millions of battery-swap capable EVs on the road, especially since a battery that's too degraded to be the primary in an EV still has perhaps a decade of usefulness as stationary storage.

If there are enough cars & enough demand for battery swap, they'll offer a subscription plan similar to what Shai Agassi envisioned for Better Place.

Perhaps, but if there were that many battery-swap capable Tesla EVs on the road, they'd probably be in the financial position to do something like that. I think the basic point is that the concern about getting a worn out battery from a swap isn't going to be a concern, either with the current system (where you get your existing battery back) or with a hypothetical battery subscription service.

For most people, though, battery swaps will be rare. You might need to drive far enough to justify one occasionally

The problem with this assertion is that you've used the fuel efficiency of a typical european mid sized car (around the size of a jetta or something like that), but the fuel tank size of a very large car/SUV. I don't know of a single small-mid sized 4 door car with a 60 litre fuel tank. Most are closer to 30 litre.

That's simply not the case. The smallest tank I ever had in an european car was 50 liters, and this was a compact with a small 1,2 liter 3-cyl-engine. The company car has 55 liters, and my previous car had 74 liters. I have yet to see an european car with a 30 liter tank, the only one that came close was the old East German Trabant, which indeed had only a 25 liter tank, but this was a car with a 600 ccm 2-cyl-two-stroke engine.

Fuel economy is measured in miles per gallon, the metric equivalent of which is kilometres per litreI can't get my head around an inverse measure..

Anyway not everyone needs to be able to go 1000Km in one trip, but 300 - 400Km would be useful, since cities are farther apart in the USA than EUFWIW its 300Km from here to The Cities, and 400Km from FM to The Cities

And after 4 - 5 hours you'd probably want to stop for a meal, so your bat

European cars all show fuel economy in liters/100km. I don't know why. Seemed odd to me at first, too.

Since everything does it that way, it's an easy lower-is-better comparison.

I'd be curious if anyone knows why it caught on to measure it that way. Maybe it's easier at the pump? If I put in 5L, then I can go 100km... ?

If you do the same test that the EU uses to determine fuel economy.

L per 100 KM good because it's an aggregate score, it gives you an idea of the vehicles fuel efficiency under real world conditions. However because fuel deficiency depends on the driver and the route.

I don't see people saying that, mostly just that they expect parity with ICE vehicles before it will truly be useful outside of limited circumstances. For example, even that fairly generous 265 miles just isn't enough to make an electric vehicle attractive to me. I would require somewhere on the order of twice that, a little over 500 miles, to match the typical single-day range of my mid-size sedan.
Right now, my personal, lay opinion is that electric vehicles are currently suitable for short commutes and

Right, I have no problem with expecting an electric car to be able to drive for an entire day without charging. But then expecting it to be able to charge in 10 minutes is ridiculous. For me, as soon as it can make it for 12 hours without a charge, it's good, as I can go to bed, and charge it for 4-8 hours without any issue at that point.

Which is true, the ones that an average person can afford (Leaf, for example) without stretching their finances have much more limited range. Suitable for someone living in a major metropolitan area who never needs to drive further than to an airport at the periphery, but not really for your average suburbanite. Hell, I live in a medium-sized city, and because different neighborhoods have different things I want, it isn't uncommon for me to rack up the range of a Leaf over the course of a day's errands with

Agreed, for the price, they just aren't ready for prime time yet. Clearly that day will come, but it isn't today. For what a Nissan Leaf costs, you can buy a nicer, larger car, without the limits of electric. The price point of electric is just too high, for now...

It's more like 4 minutes versus 30 minutes, but the point is still fair. Luckily, Tesla's battery swap option should take about 90 seconds (beating refuelling), assuming they ever actually deploy them. So far, Tesla's battery swapping has been a paper launch.

You know, where when you're on the highway you pull your energy from the road itself which would have power cables in it. Unfortunately I think I've read that would be really expensive. (Plus I think doing an induced current is less efficient. Been awhile since I've looked up anything on that though.)

Of course they do, I don't see these people saying electric cars are dead. In fact, I think electric cars are the only future, because they actually can use any power source to make the electricity, it decouples the car from the source of power.

The problem is that people want a car that covers all their uses, not just 90%. Most people own one car. For families that own two, one could be all electric, but not both.

The future is in cars with range extension, then when batteries come out that can drive

Have you considered switching careers to developing batteries? In 50, 500, 5000 or even 50,000 years from now, we'll be using batteries because their inherent qualities and convenience make them a better choice than anything else.

As far as I know, fuel cells are not solid-state and require refueling from potentially high pressure gas. It also limits the fuel source type, whereas a battery can use any fuel type (as they can all generate electricity, from coal to solar to fusion).

Please inform Porsche so they can jack up the price of the Panamera - NorthAm sales are down over 30% since the Model S started shipping.It's also put a damper on the sales of some of the BWM 7-series and the Lexus GS

In fact, all of the most profitable cars went way down due to ppl wanting Tesla. As it is, it is the only car that is truly on a wait list. For others that are less than 150K, and on a wait list, it is because the manufacturer is playing games with customers.

First off, the Model S can handle double the battery weight without any issues.
Third, why would you call somebody that hates to waste money on slow poorly made cars, to spend it on well-made high performance inexpensive cars to be stupid? Considering that the Model S is better than any car that costs under 150K, I would say that it is one of the best values going.

The only difference is that Elon Musk has far more credibility than you do. He sometimes takes a bit longer to deliver, but his record on making wild assertions and making them actually happen is pretty good.